<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (4) TMI 390 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751209</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding TP adjustment on royalty payments. The TPO had rejected a post facto addendum to the royalty agreement and held that no royalty was payable on services rendered to third parties through the associated enterprise. The ITAT ruled that the addendum merely clarified the original understanding between parties that royalty was payable on entire sales revenue, including third-party sales solicited by the AE. The tribunal found that the Foreign Collaboration Agreement supported this interpretation, with the AE acting as intermediary rather than end customer. The ITAT held both DRP and TPO erred in rejecting the addendum and misinterpreting the agreement clauses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 390 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751209</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding TP adjustment on royalty payments. The TPO had rejected a post facto addendum to the royalty agreement and held that no royalty was payable on services rendered to third parties through the associated enterprise. The ITAT ruled that the addendum merely clarified the original understanding between parties that royalty was payable on entire sales revenue, including third-party sales solicited by the AE. The tribunal found that the Foreign Collaboration Agreement supported this interpretation, with the AE acting as intermediary rather than end customer. The ITAT held both DRP and TPO erred in rejecting the addendum and misinterpreting the agreement clauses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>